I'm not sure if this is right for this part of Stackexchange, but since there is no psychology section, here we go:

I'm currently writing the same short story several times with the intention of conveying one very intense emotion each time. I'm wondering if "putting yourself" in the emotion charges you to write better to that effect.

I'm trying to imagine some link similar to the one in acting. I've heard that thinking of something sad to make oneself cry, or Heath Ledger's depression he experienced during his role as the Joker, one so intense he ended up needing medication.

Is there a connection between the emotion a writer is feeling with how a feeling is being conveyed in the writing?

I'd say yes, there is - but not direct. I wrote some of my most cheerful, sweet and nice stories while heavily depressed and far from these moods, but just so that you wouldn't think it's a simple reversal, some of my vicious and mean works were written under quite vicious moods.
–
SF.May 6 '13 at 0:07

Related: CogSci.stackexchange.com, a beta site where (according to the faq) "If you have questions about ... Cognitive science, Psychology (e.g., cognitive, social, developmental, biological, applied, clinical, organizational, etc.), Psychiatry, Neuroscience and neurobiology ... then you're in the right place to ask your question." And while I believe that cross-posts are discouraged, if this particular question does not get the kind of answer you're looking for, you might want to consider asking it over there.
–
Jed OliverMay 6 '13 at 3:57

I think that I'll get a better answer here than there. Thank you though!
–
ThrosbyMay 6 '13 at 4:49

2

Is the reductio ad adsurdum that to write about an amputee I should hack off my leg? I think it was Wordworth who spoke of "emotion recollected in tranquility". There is no guarantee that you will be able to exercise your writing craft while in the grip of the object mental state.
–
FortiterMay 6 '13 at 6:45

(NOT a professional writer) IMHO there is a certain level of composure required to write, or to do anything. Too intense emotions might hinder that.
–
KK.May 6 '13 at 11:02

4 Answers
4

I am reminded of the anecdote about Dustin Hoffman torturing himself for Marathon Man because he was a "Method" actor, so he'd look as tortured as his character. Lawrence Olivier looked at him and said, "My dear boy, that's why they call it acting."

Whenever we write, unless we're writing an autobiography, we are always putting ourselves into someone else's mood, experience, mindset, etc. So while you can take notes when you're in a particular mood to use for later, just because you're depressed doesn't mean you'll write brilliant prose from the POV of being depressed. You may just be too depressed to write anything.

That is, in fact, "changing how a writer writes," but not, I think, in the way you meant.

I guess the correct question would be "does having your text affected by your mood is good or bad"?

I have no doubt that what the author is feeling affects the way he writes, just as anybody in any kind of job will be affected in their performance by the way they are feeling. It's normal to a certain point.

The problem is that, what you feel, might affect your work in different ways, and it's up to you to use what is good and left outside what is not.

I always heard that Interview with the Vampire was written after the death of the author's daughter and, in fact, I see a really good book with a good deal of emotion in it. If that is true, I can see aspects of that death of a child in its pages (if it's not, writing is subjective anyway). I would say that Anne's emotion was good for the text and she knew how to deal with it.

On the other hand, I see people start to do a lot of crappy text because they are depressed. A common mistake is to write about what you are feeling and forget that other people will read and need to achieve what you are feeling. A book is not a diary.

It does impact how you write, and possibly your ability to write, but not always in a predictable or positive sense.

At first it might seem that it's easier to write about a particular emotion when you're experiencing that emotion. Not necessarily. Let's assume that you can somehow work yourself into that emotional state without it seeming strained or artificial. (I'm glossing over that, but recognize the ability to do so is remarkably difficult unto itself.) Does that really give you any value when it comes to portraying that emotion?

For first-person stories, perhaps, but even then it will require significant editing. People undergoing an intense emotion tend to get wrapped up in that emotion, but you don't want that kind of directionless anger, depression, or what have you in a story. There should be enough to get a sense of it, but getting lost in it means you run the risk of losing the narrative, and therefore the reader's attention.

In third-person I'd say it's almost useless. Unless you're going to let the character's thoughts take over the narrative in some subtle way, there's no point. You need to remain firmly in the mind of the narrator, even if your third-person story follows characters (or possibly just one character) closely.

That said, it is helpful when it comes to writing about intense emotion to have experienced that emotion, but the key here lies in past tense. It's hard to describe something when you're currently experiencing it, but far easier when it's a memory. After all, intense emotion is more often than not an inhibitor of logical thinking, which isn't very helpful when you need to sit down and pump out a story.

I have noticed when writing poetry or music, I tend to do my most prolific work when I am upset. I write down everything I can and use that mood as fuel. When I am in a happier mood and reread what I wrote, it is usually garbage, but I am able to do some good editing.

I hate to answer with a completely subjective answer, but that is what I have found.